Letter to the Editor: Demand it goes on ballot

On Nov. 5 the Lake County Board of Supervisors considered the fate of our rent control initiative. In the course of the meeting, Supervisor Brown made some valid points, and I would like to address them.

But first, a word of explanation: The federal government uses a consumer price index to determine increases in benefits.

The index measures changes in the cost of living. That index, known as "CPI chained", notoriously underestimates the real increases in the cost of living, which Brown pointed out.

So, Brown would like to see mobile home park owners be able to raise space rents without constraint while senior renters are shackled to "CPI chained."

Coincidentally, I gave the supervisors a handout making that very point, but from the point of view of the tenants. I used my own case as an example to demonstrate that each year my increase in rent had exceeded the increase in my Social Security benefits, thus insuring that I will continue to get poorer, sans intervention by our initiative.

The second point Brown made was that our initiative would create a "taking." One definition of a "taking" is when government denies you the opportunity to make a "fair and reasonable" profit.

"Fair and reasonable" means that the return on an investment is equivalent to similar investments in similar areas. However, a "taking" is also defined as the government taking your property without just compensation. Now, keep in mind that as space rents go up in a park, the value of an individual mobile home goes down.

So space rent increases not only make seniors poorer, but also diminish the value of their mobile home.

There have been instances in which space rent has increased to the point that mobile homes had lost all of their value, could not be sold, and were simply abandoned (and forfeited to the owner of the park). Is this not a "taking" (by omission), should the county impede our initiative? So, the points Brown made cut both ways.

Worst case scenario for the park owners: profits will increase, but they will be limited. Worst case scenario for the senior tenants: increased poverty and eventual homelessness.

A famous jurist commented that "the law floats on a sea of ethics." This means that the law reflects what people think is morally right. And, after speaking with literally thousands of Lake County voters in the course of gathering signatures, I can tell you that the voters of Lake County almost unanimously favor defending the aged.

Supervisors Farrington and Rushing voted to send the initiative to ballot and let the people decide. Brown, Smith, and Comstock, did not. Supervisor Comstock said that he would vote to go to ballot, but wanted to hear the reports from staff.

On Dec. 3, after hearing reports from staff, the vote will be revisited. Please call your supervisor and demand that the initiative go to ballot.